As living costs rise, consumers must choose carefully how they spend their disposable income, especially since these purchases can affect factors adjacent to living costs. A young professional may want to invest in a class to build her skills and make herself more appealing to employers, invest in work outfits to enhance her appearance, or purchase art for her office to create a more productive environment. However, with a fixed disposable income, something must be sacrificed. Skill acquisition is a long-term investment that boosts personal value, unlike clothing, which can be difficult to sustain. While learning from unreliable sources isn’t recommended, affordable, well-designed clothes and art that mimic top creatives can elevate a professional image without overspending.
Enter fast fashion: a solution of visually appealing items without the hefty price tag. Fast fashion has contributed to clothing production doubling, and the number of garments per capita increasing by 60% from 2000 to 2014.[1] In 2023, the global industry’s estimated worth was around $2 trillion.[2] Companies like Forever 21 and Primark have capitalized on this market. The brick-and-mortar model for fast fashion has declined, yet its online counterparts have thrived. Stores like Chic Me, Temu, and, most notably, Shein have revolutionized the industry into an ultra-fast one, offering thousands of products at even lower prices.
Supply and demand prompt these ultra-fast fashion houses to devise innovative ideas for quick and efficient production. Companies like Shein could hire designers, but employment expenses could raise these low prices. Human scouts to identify emerging designs may add to that price. However, AI tools can be utilized for cost-efficient problem-solving, such as internet searches for fashion trends. This is what has made Shein so efficient, with an annual revenue of $30 billion.[3]Yet, what happens when these trends are found? This is the central issue in Giana v. Shein Distribution Corp.
Alan Giana (“Giana”) is an award-winning artist who has created “colorful works inspired by nature and the sea” that he has sold and licensed to others, including commercial distributors worldwide.[4] Giana alleges that his work has been used on “cards, calendars [and] canvas prints.”[5] None of the companies to which he licensed was Shein, and none of the companies licensed or authorized Shein to use Giana’s works.[6] Giana alleges that Shein used “algorithmic technology or other systematic methods” to copy and display Giana’s artwork on their website without authorization, manufactured products bearing Giana’s artwork, and earned profits from selling these products.[7]
Fig. 1 – Giana’s original work “Rays of Hope III”.[8]
Fig. 2 – Alleged Infringing Product on Shein’s website.[9]
As of September 25, 2025, the original work above is live on Giana’s website.[10] The alleged infringing product was available for sale on Shein’s website until at least September 10, 2025, one day before the complaint was filed.[11] Shein’s unauthorized usage of Giana’s work triggers copyright infringement, a legal theory already brought against Shein.
A copyright owner, to establish a prima facie case of infringement on the right to reproduce, must demonstrate that (1) defendants had access to his or her work and (2) that there existed substantial similarity between their work and his or her own.[12] Direct evidence of copying is not required.[13]
Access to Giana’s work is evident here. His work is available online on his website and on the websites of his licensees. If Shein’s AI tool were to scan the entire World-Wide-Web, it would be able to access URLs to view Giana’s work. Even if Shein had not used its tool, an individual could access and copy the publicly available art.
The work is strikingly similar, if not identical. Only one of the complaint’s exhibits has changed: the boat, on the right side of the painting, has been deleted, and a window has been superimposed on the work to create the illusion of the view being seen through a window. Still, since the original work was obtained without a license from Giana, these changes would not grant Shein protection as a derivative work.[14]
Why choose this path? Shein could have used the copied work as inspiration, seeing that an idea is not eligible for copyright protection.[15] This, however, may have been an added production cost. Shein could have also designed independent works inspired by the original using AI tools. Still, because AI is not human and lacks human originality, and courts have increasingly ruled that AI-generated work is ineligible for copyright protection[16], Shein could have a vulnerability in its intellectual property rights and monetization possibilities.
Ironically, if an AI tool is intelligent enough to search the web for works, surely it can recall public information connected with the works, like the owner of the copyrighted work. There is little doubt that Shein could not have licensed Giana’s work. A multinational company can hire lawyers to draft standard licensing agreements for the use of copyrighted work. Giana would probably not have been against licensing to Shein, having already licensed to others. However, this could also increase Shein’s production costs.
Giana, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment[17], alleges that Shein has been sued for infringing the copyrights of larger brands, like Ralph Lauren.[18] However, if smaller or independent creators send them take-down notices, they don’t budge.[19] Giana alleges that Shein deliberately uses this practice, knowing that these creators lack the financial means to sue.[20] Case in point: this complaint is for a class-action lawsuit, with a minimum of one hundred plaintiffs.
Giana, with its contemporaries, raises an issue that the fashion industry must consider urgently: fast fashion and the non-licensing of artists is a conflict between business efficiency and creative rights. What’s the lowest threshold for companies to reduce production costs to maximize profits? Is market survival and high profit margins a priority over product originality and respect for legally protected property? As AI and intellectual property continue to converge, small and independent creators should be vigilant over their work, investing in methods to monitor authorized and unauthorized use, and collaborating, like in this case, to find a way forward.
[1] McKinsey, What is Fast Fashion?, McKinsey: Our Insights (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-fast-fashion.
[2] Id.
[3] Giana Compl. 2:11.
[4] Id. at 16:19-22, 17:1-6.
[5] Id. at 17:3-4.
[6] Id. at 17:5-6.
[7] Id. at 17:17-20.
[8] Id. at 23: 4-17.
[9] Id. at 24: 7-17.
[10] Alan Giana, Gallery. https://www.alangiana.com/gallery.html.
[11] Giana Compl. 24, fn. 13.
[12] Walker v. Univ. Books, Inc., 602 F.2d 859, 864 (9th Cir. 1979).
[13] Id.
[14] 17 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
[15] 17 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
[16] See, e.g., Thaler v. Perlmutter, 687 F.Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2023).
[17] Giana Compl. 40:7-27.
[18] Id. at 12:3-6.
[19] Id. at 13: 12-19.
[20] Id. at 13:1-7.